Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1924–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., LPgreen1 sentence2020Ryan v. TCI Architects/Engineers/Contractors, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 913 (Ind. 2017) (citing Bagley v. Insight Commc’ns Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584, 586 (Ind. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Ryan v. TCI Architects/Engineers/Contractors, Inc. and BMH Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Craft Mechanicalgreen1 sentence2020Ryan v. TCI Architects/Engineers/Contractors, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 913 (Ind. 2017) (citing Bagley v. Insight Commc’ns Co., L.P., 658 N.E.2d 584, 586 (Ind. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Moberly v. Daygreen1 sentence2015See Moberly, 757 N.E.2d at 1010 . [20] Stacey does not discuss any of the other factors of the employee vs. independent contractor analysis, but we note that they further support the conclusion that Yager was acting as an independent contractor. | 1 | 1 |
Motor Dispatch, Inc. v. Buggiegreen2 sentences2014Therefore we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by awarding the attorney fees Contractor incurred defending against Developers counterclaims”), trans. denied; Motor Dispatch, Inc. v. Buggie, 177 Ind. App. 347, 352 , 379 N.E.2d 543, 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (stating, “it would be useless to provide attorney fees for collection on a defaulted note if time spent defending fatuous set-off claims were not also recompensable”). 2014Therefore we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by awarding the attorney fees Contractor incurred defending against Developers counterclaims”), trans. denied; Motor Dispatch, Inc. v. Buggie, 177 Ind. App. 347, 352 , 379 N.E.2d 543, 546 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (stating, “it would be useless to provide attorney fees for collection on a defaulted note if time spent defending fatuous set-off claims were not also recompensable”). | 1 | 1 |
Abbey Villas Development Corp. v. Site Contractors, Inc.green1 sentence2014See, e.g., Abbey Villas Developmental Corp. v. Site Contractors, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 91, 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (concluding that “Contractor’s defense against [Developer’s counterclaims] was part and parcel of, and necessary to, the enforcement of its mechanic’s lien. | 1 | 1 |
PSI Energy, Inc. v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2006Moreover, our supreme court has recently held that "in the absence of negligent selection of the contractor, an employee of the contractor has no claim against the principal based solely on the five exceptions to the general rule of nonliability for acts of the contractor." PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829 N.E.2d 943 953 (Ind.2005) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Hewes v. Wolfegreen2 sentences1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven 1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cabinetree of Wisconsin, Incorporated v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2023And this case is not on par with Cabinetree, in which the Seventh Circuit found waiver where the defendant “dropped a bombshell into the proceedings” and sought arbitration in the middle of the litigation, after plaintiff had provided extensive discovery to defendant, a trial date had been set six months prior, and the defendant offered no reason for its delay in requesting a stay besides needing time to weigh its options. 50 F.3d at 389 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Beatty v. LaFountaine
green
1 sentence2010In a closely related claim, citing Beatty v. LaFountaine, 896 N.E.2d 16 , Gilbert contends that, even assuming Ledgerwood is not an employee, it is instead an independent contractor and is liable via the non-delegable duty exception to the independent contractor rule. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Jim Barna Log Systems Midwest, Inc. v. General Casualty Insurance Co. of Wisconsin
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 828-24 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
R.N. Thompson & Associates, Inc. v. Monroe Guaranty Insurance
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Weedo, 405 A.2d at 791 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hale v. Peabody Coal Company
green
2 sentences1990Hale v. Peabody Coal Company (1976), 168 Ind.App. 336 , 343 N.E.2d 316 catalogs five exceptions to the independent contractor rule. 1990Hale v. Peabody Coal Company (1976), 168 Ind.App. 336 , 343 N.E.2d 316 catalogs five exceptions to the independent contractor rule. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Allison v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990The case of Allison v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (1977), 173 Ind.App. 41 , 362 N.E.2d 193 at 195-96 holds that a party may have imposed upon him by statute a duty for the safety of third persons that is not abrogated in the presence of an intervening independent contractor. 1990The case of Allison v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (1977), 173 Ind.App. 41 , 362 N.E.2d 193 at 195-96 holds that a party may have imposed upon him by statute a duty for the safety of third persons that is not abrogated in the presence of an intervening independent contractor. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Racoosin v. Le Schack & Grodensky, P. C.
green
2 sentences1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven 1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven-Up Bottling Co.
green
2 sentences1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven 1985See Hewes v. Wolfe (1985), 74 N.C.App. 610 , 330 S.E.2d 16 (where attorney tortiously institutes or contineus civil proceedings or is guilty of oppressive or wrongful conduct during course of proceeding in order to enforce claim of client, client is liable for attorney's wrongful acts); Racoosin v. LeSchack & Grodensky (1980), N.Y.Sup., 103 Misc.2d 629 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 707 (utility liable for damages for willful interference with property where judgment against customer for unpaid utility bills was later declared void for lack of jurisdiction over customer); Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ingle v. State
green
1 sentence1924Marion Shoe Co. v. Eppley, supra; Leet v. Block (1914), 182 Ind. 271 , 106 N. E. 373 , 20 A. L. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Leet v. Block
green
1 sentence1924Marion Shoe Co. v. Eppley, supra; Leet v. Block (1914), 182 Ind. 271 , 106 N. E. 373 , 20 A. L. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.